T AP YRO L O G Y P C OF THE ONGRESS OF ROCEEDINGS J …

TH

E J

OU

RN

AL

OF

J

UR

IS

TI

CP

AP

YR

OL

OG

YSupplem

ent XX

VIII

TH

E

JO

UR

NA

LO

F

JU

RI

ST

IC

PA

PY

RO

LO

GY

Supp

lem

ent

XX

VII

I

JJP

Supp

lem

ent

XX

VII

I

PROC

EEDI

NGS

OFTH

E27

THIN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

CONG

RESS

OFPA

PYRO

LOGY

VOL. I

PROCEEDINGSOF THE 27TH INTERNATIONALCONGRESS OF PAPYROLOGYWARSAW | 29 JULY – 3 AUGUST 2013

EDITED BYTOMASZ DERDAADAM ¸AJTARJAKUB URBANIK

IN COOPERATION WITHGRZEGORZ OCHAŁA ANDRZEJ MIRO¡CZUK

VOL. IWARSAW 2016

27th International Congress of Papyrology XX

VII eC

ongr¯s internationalde papyrologieWar

saw

/Var

sovi

e 20

13

CONGRESS_1_XXVIII_2:Janiszewski_cov. 6/18/16 4:10 PM

UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW FACULTY OF LAW AND ADMINISTRATIONCHAIR OF ROMAN AND ANTIQUE LAW

UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PAPYROLOGY

THE RAPHAEL TAUBENSCHLAGFOUNDATION

THE JOURNAL OF JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY

SERIES EDITORSTOMASZ DERDAADAM ¸AJTARJAKUB URBANIK

VOLUME XXVIII

Supplements

Proceedingsof the 27th International Congress of Papyrology

Warsaw, 29 July – 3 August 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume OneLITERARY PAPYRI: TEXTS AND STUDIES

OPENING LECTURERoger S. Bagnall, Illegitimacy in Roman and Late Antique Egypt ..................

SECTION ONE: POETRYJosé Antonio Fernández Delgado, Contribution of the new papyri to the history

of Hesiod’s text ................................................................................................Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez, Theseus’ and Pirithous’ catabasis in

P. Ibscher col. I (Hes. fr. 280 Merkelbach–West = Minyas fr. 7 Bernabé) ......C. Michael Sampson, A new reconstruction of Sappho 44 (P. Oxy. X 1232 + P. Oxy.

XVII 2076) ..............................................................................................Benedetto Bravo, Anacreonte, Poetae Melici Graeci 346/1, fr. 1, 1–12: Uno scherzo

sull’erõs del potere politico .........................................................................Kathleen McNamee, A new look at the Würzburg Phoenissae commentary .....Fjodor Montemurro, P. Berol. 5514 re-examined: textual and exegetical problems

in Euripides, Melanippe desmotis, fr. 495 Kannicht .....................................Krystyna Bartol, How to serve a giant fish? Pap. Duk. F 1984.7 = Adesp. Com.

1146 K.-A.: Some textual problems ...........................................................Angelo Casanova, Note sul lessico della rhesis di Panfile (Men., Epitr. 801–835) ...Jan Kwapisz, P. Heid. G 310a revisited: Hellenistic sotadeans, hexameters, and

more? ........................................................................................................Marco Perale, A Hellenistic astronomical poem from Oxyrhynchus ..................Gabriel Nocchi Macedo, Juvenal in Antinoë. Palaeographic and contextual

observations on P. Ant. s.n. ........................................................................

5

21

37

53

63

85

97

117

129

145

155

167

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TWO: PROSENatascia Pellé, Frammenti delle Historiae di Tucidide su rotoli riutilizzati: uno

studio bibliologico e paleografico ...............................................................Francesca De Robertis, P. Mich. inv. 918 e la tradizione della terza Filippica di

Demostene ................................................................................................Rosa Otranto, Esegesi demostenica su papiro: P. Lit. Lond. 179 [MP 3 307] .......María Paz López Martínez, Consuelo Ruiz Montero, The Parthenope’s

novel: P. Berol. 7927 + 9588 + 21179 revisited ............................................Giuseppe Ucciardello, New light on P. Strasb. Gr. 1406–1409: An early witness

of Secundus’ sentences ................................................................................Chris Rodriguez, Le cri d ’une victime de la tyrannie: La théâtralisation des

débats dans les Acta Appiani .....................................................................Natalia Vega Navarrete, Acta Appiani: Gerüchte über den kaiserlichen Hof in

Alexandria ...............................................................................................

SECTION THREE: HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Christian Vassallo, Towards a comprehensive edition of the evidence for pre -

socratic philosophy in the Herculaneum papyri ..........................................Giuliana Leone, L’edizione di Epicuro, Sulla natura, libro II ............................Aurora Corti, P. Herc. 454: Una «scorza» di Epicuro, Sulla natura XXV (P. Herc.

1420/1056) ...............................................................................................Michele Alessandrelli, Graziano Ranocchia, P. Herc. 1020 (Stoici

scriptoris anonymi opus incertum). Condizioni fisiche, aspetti bibliologici e storia editoriale ......................................................................................

Mario Capasso, Nuovi frammenti del De adulatione di Filodemo (P. Herc. 1092) ...Mariacristina Fimiani, Contributo al testo del P. Herc. 1423 (Filodemo, Retorica,

libro IV) ..................................................................................................Graziano Ranocchia, P. Herc. 1004 ([Filodemo], [Sulla retorica], libro incerto).

Condizioni fisiche, descrizione bibliologica e storia degli studi .....................Matilde Fiorillo, Segni di interpunzione e di correzione nel P. Herc. 1004

(Filodemo, Retorica VII) ..........................................................................Giovanni Indelli, Francesca Longo Auricchio, Il P. Herc. 1471 (Filodemo,

La libertà di parola) nelle carte Vogliano ..................................................Kilian Fleischer, New readings in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum: Dio of

Alexandria (P. Herc. 1021, col. XXXV, 17–19) ..........................................Daniel Delattre, Joëlle Delattre-Biencourt, Annick Monet, Agathe

Antoni, La reconstruction du P. Herc. Paris. 2, Philodème, [La Calomnie]:Quelques nouveautés textuelles ..................................................................

Holger Essler, Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas, ‘Aristarchus X’ and Philodemus:Digital linguistic analysis of a Herculanean text corpus .............................

187

201223

235

251

279

301

315347

357

373389

401

413

433

445

459

471

491

TABLE OF CONTENTS VII

Michael McOsker, Verso una nuova edizione del P. Herc. 188 (Demetrio Lacone,Sulla poesia I). Storia del papiro ed indentificazione degli avversari .........

Antonio Parisi, Osservazioni preliminari sul P. Herc. 124 ................................Gianluca Del Mastro, Il titolo del P. Herc. 1005 .............................................

SECTION FOUR: CHRISTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI Jitse H. F. Dijkstra, The ‘Alexandrian World Chronicle’. Place in the late antique

chronicle traditions, date, and historical implications ..................................Marco Stroppa, I papiri greci dell’Asceticon dell’abate Isaia ..............................Alan Gampel, Céline Grassien, P. Duke Inv. 766: Le plus ancien témoin papy-

rologique d ’un canon poétique liturgique ...................................................

Volume TwoSUBLITERARY PAPYRI, DOCUMENTARY PAPYRI,

SCRIBAL PRACTICES, LINGUISTIC MATTERS

SECTION FIVE: POPULAR LITERATURE, MEDICINE, MAGIC, LETTERS Francisca A. J. Hoogendijk, Page of an oracle book: Papyrus Kellis 96.150 .....Luigi Prada, P. Oxy. XXXI 2607 re-edited: A Greek oneirocriticon from Roman

Egypt .......................................................................................................Ann Ellis Hanson, P. Ryl. III 530 and the Latin commentaries to the Hippocratic

aphorisms .................................................................................................Isabella Bonati, Between text and context: P. Oslo II 54 reconsidered ...............Antonio Ricciardetto, Inventaire et typologie des listes grecques et latines de

produits pharmaceutiques .........................................................................Korshi Dosoo, Magical discourses, ritual collections: Cultural trends and private

interests in Egyptian handbooks and archives ............................................Rachel Yuen-Collingridge, Legibility in the Greek magical papyri: The

treatment of formulae in PGM IV ...........................................................Laura Willer, Die Handhabung magischer Schriftamulette im römischen ÄgyptenLincoln H. Blumell, A Christian amulet containing a doxology with sketches on

the back ....................................................................................................Iain Gardner, The Sethian context to a Coptic handbook of ritual power

(= P. Macquarie I) ....................................................................................

503515525

535549

561

595

623

647659

677

699

717735

745

755

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Marie-Hélène Marganne, Du texte littéraire au document: Les connexionsentre les papyrus littéraires et documentaires grecs et latins ........................

Amaia Goñi Zabalegui, On the other side of the dialogue: letters addressed towomen from Roman Egypt .......................................................................

Antonia Sarri, Handshifts in letters ..................................................................

SECTION SIX: COLLECTIONS OF PAPYRI María Jesús Albarrán Martínez, Archives d ’Apa Sabinos dans le fonds copte

de la Sorbonne ..........................................................................................Carla Balconi, Papiri della collezione dell’Università Cattolica di Milano pro-

venienti dalla Grande Oasi .......................................................................Katherine Blouin, Papyri in Paris: The Greek papyrus collection in the Biblio-

thèque nationale de France ........................................................................Franziska Naether, Demotic texts from Leipzig ..............................................Déborah Vignot-Kott, D’Apollonopolis Magna à Varsovie. Regard sur les

textes démotiques d ’Edfou dans les collections polonaises ............................

SECTION SEVEN: GREEK AND LATIN PAPYRI AND OSTRACA: NEW AND REVISITED TEXTS Panagiota Sarischouli, BKT IX 158 revisited: An extract from judicial pro-

ceedings rather than a prose fragment ........................................................Hélène Cuvigny, Un type méconnu de document administratif militaire:

la demande de versement de frumentum praeteritum (O. Claud. inv. 7235 et ChLA XVIII 662) ...............................................................................

Eleonora Angela Conti, PSI inv. 1816. Una lettera privata in scrittura libraria..Alia Hanafi, Two unpublished documents from the Coptic Museum in Cairo ....Fatma E. Hamouda, A boule-papyrus from Karanis .........................................Shareen A. Aly, Three Greek ostraca from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo .......Nadine Quenouille, The Gerontios-Archive: A sub-archive to the Abinnaeus-

Archive? ...................................................................................................Anne Boud’hors, Jean Gascou, Le monastère de Dorothée dans la montagne

d’Antinoopolis ..........................................................................................Seham D. A. Aish, Noha A. Salem, Ten new documents from the archive of the

elaiourgoi of Aphrodite (O. Cairo Museum S.R. 18953) ..............................

SECTION EIGHT: COPTIC PAPYRI AND OSTRACA Anne Boud’hors, Apprendre à lire et à écrire: deux documents coptes revisités .Esther Garel, The ostraca of Victor the priest found in the hermitage MMA 1152 .

767

777797

823

837

853883

895

911

931943953961967

975

991

1011

10271041

Jennifer Cromwell, Coptic documents in two copies: A study of corrections andamendments ..............................................................................................

SECTION NINE: ARABIC PAPYRIUrsula Bsees, Half a sale contract or an unknown type of document? Going deeper

into P. Cair. EgLib. inv. 885 verso .............................................................Johannes Thomann, An Arabic horoscope on parchment with a square diagram

for ad 1002 (P. Vind. inv. A. Perg. 236) .....................................................

SECTION TEN: ANATOMY OF A TEXT, BIBLIOLOGICAL MATTERSFrancesca Maltomini, Use and reuse of papyrus rolls and scraps: Some bibliological

matters .....................................................................................................Francisca Pordomingo, Scriptio plena vs. élision dans les papyrus littéraires:

Les papyrus ptolémaïques avec des textes poétiques ....................................Enrico Emanuele Prodi, Titles and markers of poem-end in the papyri of Greek

choral lyric ...............................................................................................Chiara Meccariello, Title, !ρχ$, %π'θεσι,. Notes on the heading and

arrangement of the tragic hypotheses on papyrus ........................................Chiara Martis, Sistemi di correzione nei papiri letterari greco-egizi: Consider-

azioni preliminari ....................................................................................Thomas A. Wayment, Michael R. Trotter, P. Oxy. LXIV 4405: An early

witness to a system of textual division at Oxyrhynchus ..............................Nathan Carlig, Symboles et abréviation chrétiens dans les papyrus littéraires

grecs à contenu profane (ive–viie siècles) ....................................................

SECTION ELEVEN: LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, ONOMASTICSSonja Dahlgren, Egyptian transfer elements in the Greek of Narmouthis ostraka .Grzegorz Ochała, Multilingualism in Christian Nubia: A case study of the

monastery of Ghazali (Wadi Abu Dom, Sudan) ........................................Maria Chiara Scappaticcio, Coniugare nell’una e nell’altra lingua. Sondaggi

dalle flessioni verbali greco-latine su papiro ..............................................Joanne Vera Stolk, Dative and genitive case interchange in Greek papyri ........Elena Martín González, -ον'σκορδον (PGM IV 2209) ...........................Zsuzsanna Szántó, Les noms bibliques des Juifs dans l’Égypte hellénistique ......

TABLE OF CONTENTS IX

1055

1077

1085

1097

1113

1137

1185

1201

1231

1245

1257

1265

1285130513251333

X TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume ThreeSTUDYING PAPYRI

SECTION TWELVE: HISTORY OF PAPYROLOGY, NEW PAPYROLOGICAL TOOLSHolger Essler, Wilckens Briefe an britische Kollegen ........................................Alain Martin, Charles Wessely à la «Semaine Égyptologique» de Bruxelles ........Herbert Verreth, Topography of Egypt online ................................................Marius Gerhardt, Die Berliner Papyrusdatenbank (BerlPap) ..........................Jean-Luc Fournet, Simona Russo, La culture matérielle dans les papyrus: une

nouvelle entreprise lexicographique ...........................................................Nicola Reggiani, Data processing and state management in Late Ptolemaic

and Roman Egypt: The project ‘Synopsis’ and the archive of Menches ........

SECTION THIRTEEN: PAPYROLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGYRodney Ast, Paola Davoli, Ostraka and stratigraphy at Amheida (Dakhla

Oasis, Egypt): A methodological issue ........................................................Mario Capasso, Nuovi ritrovamenti di papiri e ostraka a Soknopaiou Nesos

(2010–2012) ..............................................................................................Alberto Nodar, Two new texts from Oxyrhynchus: Archaeology and papyrology

on the site .................................................................................................Thomas Landvatter, Archaeological and papyrological inquiry at Karanis:

Problems and potentialities .......................................................................Giovanna Menci, Ogetti iscritti appartenenti alla collezione dell’Istituto Papiro-

logico «G. Vitelli» .....................................................................................Maria Mossakowska-Gaubert, La papyrologie à la rencontre de l’archéologie:

Le lexique des mobiliers d ’éclairage ...........................................................

SECTION FOURTEEN: JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY Rob Kugler, Judean legal reasoning in P. Polit. Iud. 3–5: A research report .......Joachim Hengstl, Noch einmal zum Erfahrungsprofil des Apostels Paulus aus

rechtshistorischer Sicht .............................................................................Fara Nasti, The new complete edition of P. Haun. De legatis et fideicommissis:

Some remarks ...........................................................................................

SECTION FIFTEEN: HELLENISTIC EGYPT Lucia Criscuolo, Queens’ wealth ....................................................................

1351136513791387

1393

1415

1447

1473

1483

1493

1519

1533

1565

1579

1591

1605

Andrew Monson, Harvest taxes on cleruchic land in the third century bc ........Hans Hauben, Boats and skippers in the service of Apollonios the dioiketes

especially in Zenon’s Alexandrian years (261–256 bc) ................................Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Les Égyptiens dans les forces armées de terre et de

mer sous les trois premiers Lagides .............................................................Patrick Sänger, The meaning of the word πο#$τευµα in the light of the Judaeo-

Hellenistic literature .................................................................................Christian-Jürgen Gruber, Amtsdauer und -nachfolge von Eklogistai vom aus-

gehenden ersten Jh. v.u.Z. an in Ägypten ..................................................

SECTION SIXTEEN: ROMAN EGYPTLivia Capponi, C. Calpurnius Proculus and an example of Greek stenography

under Augustus .........................................................................................Micaela Langellotti, Contracts and people in early Roman Tebtunis: A com-

plex affair ................................................................................................Marie-Pierre Chaufray, Comptes du temple de Soknopaios à Dimé à l’époque

romaine ....................................................................................................Adam Łukaszewicz, Double greetings in P. Brem. 5 and some other remarks on

Hadrian’s Egypt ........................................................................................Thomas Kruse, Zu den Kompetenzen des administrativen Hilfspersonals der

enchorischen Beamten in der römischen Kaiserzeit ....................................

SECTION SEVENTEEN: LATE ANTIQUE EGYPTMiroslava Mirkovic, Taxes and people: Transactions and misuses in the Late

Roman and Early Byzantine Egypt ..........................................................Usama A. Gad, Who was who in the aristocracy of Byzantine Oxyrhynchus .....Alexandra Jesenko, Die Topoteretai im spätantiken und früharabischen Ägypten ..Karin Maurer, Sven Tost, Polizeiliche Erzwingungs- und Verwaltungsstäbe

im spätantiken Ägypten ............................................................................Matthias Stern, Welche Gefängnisse kontrolliert der Pagarch? ..........................Isabelle Marthot, L’irrigation des terres du village d ’Aphroditê à l’époque

byzantine ..................................................................................................

SECTION EIGHTEEN: LIVING IN EGYPT IN GRAECO-ROMAN TIMES Mario C. D. Paganini, Decisional practices of private associations in Ptolemaic

and Early Roman Egypt ...........................................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS XI

1615

1633

1669

1679

1695

1709

1725

1737

1751

1761

177517871801

18251843

1871

1889

XII INDEX OF THE AUTHORS

Lucia Rossi, Le navire kerkouros, une galère marchande fluviomaritime? Pourune contribution à l’étude de la mobilité commerciale sur le Nil .................

Isabella Andorlini, Import of luxury goods in the light of the papyri of theRoman period ...........................................................................................

Yousry Deyab, Laissez-passers in the light of documentary evidence from MonsClaudianus, ad 98–117 .............................................................................

Myrto Malouta, Antinoopolis by land and river ..............................................Eman Aly Selim, Where was Psenharpsenêsis? ..................................................Claudia Tirel Cena, Who hides behind the god Djeme? ..................................Rasha Hussein el-Mofatch, Where is the party? ...........................................

SECTION NINTEEN ARABIA AND BEYONDJaakko Frösén, From carbonized papyri to the Monastery of Saint Aaron at

Petra. The ‘last will’ of Mr. Obodianos (P. Petra Inv. 6A) ..........................Jorma Kaimio, The division of landed property in P. Petra 17 ............................Rachel Mairs, New discoveries of documentary texts from Bactria: Political and

cultural change, administrative continuity ................................................

INDEX OF THE AUTHORS

1903

1927

19431961197319811993

20132025

2037

Aish, Seham D. A. 1011Albarrán Martínez, M. J. 823Alessandrelli, M. 373Aly, Shareen A. 967Andorlini, I. 1927Antoni, A. 471Ast, R. 1447

Bagnall, R. S. 5Balconi, C. 837Bartol, K. 117Blouin, K. 853Blumell, L. H. 745Bonati, I. 659Boud’hors, A. 991 and 1027

Bravo, B. 63Bsees, U. 1077

Capasso, M. 389 and 1473Capponi, L. 1709Carlig, N. 1245Casanova, A. 129Chaufray, M.-P. 1737Conti, E. A. 943Corti, A. 357Criscuolo, L. 1605Cromwell, J. 1055Cuvigny, H. 931

Dahlgren, S. 1257

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proceedingsof the 27th International Congress of Papyrology

Warsaw, 29 July – 3 August 2013pp. 1305–1324

Joanne Vera Stolk

DATIVE AND GENITIVE CASE INTERCHANGE IN GREEK PAPYRI*

1. INTRODUCTION

Greek documentary papyri and ostraca offer valuable sourcematerial for studying variation and change in the Greek language, as

has been noticed in recent years in several publications on ‘the languageof the papyri’.1 The so-called ‘decline of the dative’ is an importantdiachronic change in the Greek case system and examples from thepapyri are often used to illustrate this change.2 Since the last comprehen-

* This article presents the first results from my ongoing PhD project at the Universityof Oslo; more results will be published elsewhere. I would like to thank the participantsat the Congress for their contributions to the discussion as well as Anastasia Maravela,Mark Janse, Willy Clarysse, Trevor Evans and the anonymous reviewer for valuablecomments on previous versions of this article. 1 E.g. the papers in T. V. Evans & D. D. Obbink (eds), The Language of the Papyri, Oxford2010, and in M. Leiwo, Hilla Halla-Aho & Marja Vierros, Variation and Change in Greek andLatin [= Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 17], Helsinki 2012, among others. 2 E.g. K. Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von hellenistis-chen Zeit, Leipzig 1898, p. 150; R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd ed., Cam-bridge 1983, p. 37; G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd ed.,

1306 JOANNE VERA STOLK

sive publication about this topic, Jean Humbert’s La disparition du datif enGrec in 1930, the corpus of published documentary papyri from Egypt hasgrown substantially and published Greek papyri have become searchablethrough the Papyrological Navigator (PN). This allows for a more detailedanalysis of this process of changes in the Greek case system.

In this paper I will focus on the earliest examples of dative-genitiveinterchange in the papyri from the Ptolemaic period (323–30 bc), as theyare often taken to represent the start of the process of dative replacementin the Greek language. I will first provide a short introduction into theprocess of dative case syncretism in the Greek language (2). Then, I willshow that the dating of the start of dative by genitive replacement in thefirst century bc needs to be reconsidered (3). After that, I suggest a pos-sible method to find new examples of dative by genitive replacement inthe papyri from the Ptolemaic period (4) and how to interpret them (5).Finally, the new examples of dative by genitive replacement (6) and geni-tive by dative replacement (7) are introduced and subjected to qualitativeanalysis, before drawing some preliminary conclusions (8).

2. DATIVE CASE SYNCRETISM

Case syncretism is understood here as ‘the functional merging of par-adigmatic categories’.3 Mechanisms that contribute to case syncretismare (1.) the formal merger of case forms due to phonetic processes, (2.)analogical morphological developments, such as paradigmatic levelling orparadigm reduction, and (3.) the overlap of semantic and syntactic func-tions, i.e. the partial synonymy among cases.4

Chichester 2010, p. 116; G. Horrocks, ‘Syntax: from Classical Greek to the Koine’, [in:]A.-F. Christides (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity,Cambridge 2007, pp. 628–629. 3 G. Meiser, ‘Syncretism in Indo-European languages – motives, process and results’,Transactions of the Philological Society 90 (1992), p. 187. 4 L. Kulikov, ‘Case systems in a diachronic perspective: a typological sketch’, [in:] L.Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity, Amsterdam2006, p. 33.

DATIVE AND GENITIVE CASE INTERCHANGE 1307

In Greek, phonological change might have caused a similar pronunci-ation of the dative and genitive singular endings in the first and seconddeclension paradigms and the third person pronouns, but the interchangeof case endings of the first and second person pronouns does not seem tobe affected by these phonetic processes to the same extent.5 On the otherhand, Humbert noted that the examples of case interchange can in factbe found with personal pronouns in the papyri.6 Hence these pronominalexamples are significant for the study of semantic and syntactic overlapof the case forms, i.e. the functional replacement of the dative.

The functional replacement of the dative by the genitive is part of theprocess of dative case syncretism in the Greek language. The functions ofthe dative case were taken over by the genitive and accusative cases andby prepositional phrases. The reduction of the usage of the dative casewith certain prepositions starts already in Classical Greek and continuesin the later periods.7 Partial synonymy among the cases can also be foundin Classical Greek, e.g. in possession constructions where a possessor canbe constructed in the dative and genitive case.8 Case variation is alsofound with verbal objects.9 This appears both as synchronic alternationof the expression of the direct object with small semantic or pragmaticdifferences as well as diachronic changes in the distribution of case

5 During the Ptolemaic period formal and functional syncretism cannot easily be distin-guished, see E. Mayser & H. Schmoll, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit,I: Laut- und Wortlehre, 1. Teil, 2nd ed., Berlin 1970, pp. 116–117 and 180–183. Formal mergerbecomes evident in the Roman and Byzantine periods, cf. F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of theGreek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. I: Phonology, Milan 1976, pp. 124–125, 183,208–211, 215 n. 1, vol. II: Morphology, Milan 1981, pp. 213–217. 6 J. Humbert, La disparition du datif en Grec du ier au xe siècle, Paris 1930, p. 166. 7 Silvia Luraghi, On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2003,pp. 330–333, P. Bortone, Greek Prepositions. From Antiquity to the Present, Oxford 2010, pp. 182–186. 8 Cf. Maria Carmela Benvenuto & Flavia Pompeo, ‘Expressions of predicative posses-sion in Ancient Greek: “ε"ναι plus dative” and “ε"ναι plus genitive” constructions’, AIONSezione Linguistica 1 (2012), pp. 77–103. 9 E.g. D. Riaño Rufilanchas, ‘Differential object marking in Ancient Greek’, Linguistics52.2 (2014), pp. 513–541.


forms.10 The dative case seems to be preserved the longest as the thirdargument of a verb in the roles of beneficiary, addressee and recipient.11

Case interchange between dative and genitive in these functions is onlyoccasionally found before the final stages of dative decline in MedievalGreek.12 Therefore, interchange in these constructions during the Ptole-maic period is of particular interest for the study of dative case syn-cretism in general and the functional motivations for dative by genitivereplacement in particular.

3. PREVIOUSLY FOUND EXAMPLES

The first examples of the use of the genitive case for functions com-monly expressed by the dative case were presented by Karl Dieterich in1898.13 Dieterich dates the two examples of σου instead of σοι in P. Grenf.II 41 (= M.Chr. 183), 16 and 20, to the first century bc. These are often

10 E.g. from genitive to dative with the verbs µιµν&σκοµαι and µνηµονε+ω ‘remind, makemention of ’ and accusative to dative for (δια)φυ/0σσω ‘protect, guard’, cf. resp. A. Mar-tin, ‘“Souviens-toi de moi dans tes saintes prières.” Témoins tardifs de la vitalité du datifgrec’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 144 (2003), pp. 177–180; K. Worp,‘(123)4563778 + dat.: a linguistic regionalism in inscriptions from Christian Egypt’,Analecta Papyrologica 33–34 (2011–2012), pp. 237–239. 11 Humbert, La disparition (cit. n. 6), pp. 161–163, 199–200. 12 E. Trapp, ‘Der Dativ und der Ersatz seiner Funktionen in der byzantinischen Vul-gärdichtung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 14(1965), pp. 21–34; Tina Lendari & Io Manolessou, ‘9 εκφορ; του =µµεσου αντικειµ=νουστη >εσαιωνικ? @//ηνικ?: εκδοτικ; και γ/ωσσο/ογικ; προβ/?µατα’ [The indirect objectin Medieval Greek: editorial and linguistic problems], [in:] Studies in Greek Linguistics. Pro-ceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, School of Philosophy, AristotleUniversity of Thessaloniki (17–19 May 2002), Thessaloniki 2003, 394–405. 13 Dieterich, Untersuchungen (cit. n. 2), p. 150. The examples include: P. Grenf. II 41, 16and 20 (ad 46), BGU I 260, 6 (ad 89), BGU I 232, 2 and 4 (ad 108), Pap. Graec. Mag. II. VIII,109 (4th cent. ad), Pap. Graec. Mag. I. II, 19 (4th cent. ad), C. Wessely, ‘Die griechischePapyri Sachsens’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königliche sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wis-senschaften zu Leipzig (1885), p. 278 = UPZ I 35, 21–22 (2nd cent. bc), and C. Wessely, ‘DerPariser Papyri des Fundes von El-Faijûm’, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wis-senschaften 37 (1889), p. 116 ref. to Ap. 418.

taken as the earliest examples of dative by genitive replacement. Howev-er, P. Grenf. II 41 is in fact dated September 11, ad 46 rather than 46 bc,see the titles of emperor Claudius in lines 7–9 and 25–27, and the datingof the editio princeps and M.Chr. 183. Humbert unfortunately followed thisincorrect dating, despite his remark about the difficulties of verifyingDieterich’s texts.14 As Humbert’s monograph is still used as the primarysource for dative decline in the papyri, the notion that the replacementof the dative by the genitive started in the first century bc is foundthroughout modern literature on Greek dative decline.15 Adjusting thedating of the earliest example to the first century ad might lead to theconclusion that dative by genitive replacement is not found in the Ptole-maic papyri at all and only starts to appear in the early Roman period. Onthe other hand, the large corpus of Greek papyri published online in thePapyrological Navigator collects many more texts than the publicationswhich Humbert had at his disposal in 1930. Therefore, it might be possi-ble to uncover new examples of dative-genitive interchange in Ptolemaicpapyri. The main challenge is how to find them.

4. FINDING CASE INTERCHANGE

Attestations of the replacement of the dative case by the genitive casein the papyri are not widespread. Humbert found only twelve examples intotal in volumes of papyri published before 1930, and P. Grenf. II 41 wasthe only text which he (incorrectly) dated to the Ptolemaic period.16


14 Humbert, La disparition (cit. n. 6), pp. 168–169: ‘nous renvoyons d’ailleurs aux exem-ples cités par Dieterich, sous bénéfice … d’un difficile inventaire; car malheureusementnous n’avons pu que rarement les vérifier, et, partant, les utiliser’. He also leaves out theother of Dieterich’s examples from the Ptolemaic period, i.e. UPZ I 35 (2nd cent. bc),cf. n. 13 and example (2). 15 E.g. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (cit. n. 2), p. 37; Horrocks, Greek (cit. n.2), p. 180; A. Cooper & Effi Georgala, ‘Dative loss and its replacement in the history ofGreek’, [in:] Ans M. C. van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds), Historical Linguistics 2009.Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, August10–14, 2009 [= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 320], Amsterdam 2012, p. 281; 16 Humbert, La disparition (cit. n. 6), pp. 168–171.


A possible method to find examples of nonstandard language, i.e. devi-ations from Classical Greek or contemporary sources, in the papyri is tomake use of the expertise of scribes and editors. Corrections by thescribe on the papyrus are usually noted in the edition by adding ‘corr. ex’and the corrected form.17 These corrections could give us some idea ofthe common confusions and the actual standard that was aimed at by thescribe. However, scribal corrections of cases are rare. An additional, moreproductive method would be to single out the nonstandard expressionsaccording to judgement of the modern editors. Since the early days ofpapyrology it has been common practice to note instances of nonstan-dard orthography or morphosyntax in the text or apparatus of a papyrusedition. Gathering these instances of case corrections by modern editorsprovides us with a tentative overview of the attested linguistic variationin the published papyrus documents. In order to try this method, I fil-tered manually all instances of case corrections from the displayed resultsfor genitive personal pronouns of the first and second person singular andplural (µου, #µο$, σου, #σο$, &µ'ν, )µ'ν) in the PN.18 More recently, thismethod has resulted in a database of editorial corrections, making theresults of this type of searches easily available for everyone.19

The newly acquired results show that although the examples of theinterchange of cases are limited for the Ptolemaic period, interchange isalready attested before the first century bc. Throughout the Ptolemaicperiod (3rd–1st cent. bc) I found three interchanges for the first person

17 I include among ‘scribal corrections’ all corrections made by a writer in antiquity,regardless whether this writer was the author of the text or a professional scribe. For thenotions of authorship and authorial revision see R. Luiselli, ‘Authorial revision of linguis-tic style in Greek papyrus letters and petitions (ad i–iv)’, [in:] T. V. Evans & D. D. Obbink(eds), The Language of the Papyri, Oxford 2010, pp. 71–74; R. S. Bagnall & RaffaellaCribiore, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 bc – ad 800, Ann Arbor 2006, pp. 59–60. 18 Search queries for the genitive forms of the personal pronouns (µου – #µο$ – σου –#σο$ – &µ'ν – )µ'ν) in the Papyrological Navigator; any form with a case correction (by thescribe or by the editor) visible among the displayed search results was selected; carried outin August (1st and 2nd sg.) and October (1st and 2nd pl.) 2012. 19 See www.trismegistos.org/textirregularities and M. Depauw & Joanne Stolk, ‘Linguisticvariation in Greek papyri: towards a new tool for quantitative study’, Greek, Roman, andByzantine Studies 55 (2015), pp. 196–220.

singular (µου-µοι), four for the second person (σου-σοι) and one for thefirst person plural (%µ&ν-%µ(ν). This allows for a qualitative analysis ofthese attestations in sections 6 and 7.

5. INTERPRETING CASE INTERCHANGE

Case interchange could have multiple causes. Scribal errors in spellingor morphology may result in an apparent case interchange without reflect-ing an actual change in the language. Bilingual intereference could play arole as well. For example, P. Grenf. II 41 (see section 3) was written by Tesenouphis son of Tesenouphis one of the officials working in thegrapheion of Soknopaiou Nesos. He is probably identical with the writer ofseveral contracts in Greek and Demotic.20 Andrea Jördens notices a ten-dency of the scribes of the grapheion to write οι instead of ου, e.g. ο)*+ forο,*+ in P. Louvre I 7, 17 and 19 (Soknopaiou Nesos, ad 41–54).21 Apart fromthe interchange of the pronouns µου-µοι (l. 5) and σου-σοι (l. 16, 20) inter-change of the vowels ο-ου-οι-υ is found in the dative plural endings of σ-νκαθ+κοσι (l. καθ+κουσι) κα1 προσδια|γραφοµ7νου8 (l. προσδια|γραφοµ7νοι8)κα1 συµβο*ικ:8 (l. συµβο*ικο(8) ‘along with the payments due, added taxesand charges accruing for making out receipts’ in ll. 10-11 of P. Grenf. II 41.Therefore, the morphosyntactic abnormalities in this text are probablydue to influence from the scribe’s native language and his imperfect learn-ing of the Greek written language rather than providing an early exampleof Greek dative replacement.22

Confusion of cases in Greek papyri is often explained by interferencefrom the Egyptian language, because Egyptian scribes might have haddifficulties with the Greek case system.23 While in Greek the dative case


20 For the identification of Tesenouphis see Andrea Jördens & K.-Th. Zauzich, P. Louvre I, pp. 51 and 68. 21 Cf. P. Louvre I, p. 50. 22 See the interchanges of tau and delta (l. 13, 15), kappa and gamma (l. 2, 5) which are typ-ical for Egyptians writing Greek, and especially in the Fayum also the interchange of rhoand lambda (l. 2), cf. Gignac, A Grammar (cit. n. 5), pp. 63, 80–83, 85–86, 106–107. 23 Cf. Penelope Fewster, ‘Bilingualism in Roman Egypt’, [in:] J. N. Adams, M. Janse &


is marked by inflectional morphology on nouns and pronouns, Egyptiangenerally uses prepositions for the marking of the indirect object ofverbs. This typological difference should not pose an immediate problemfor bilingual scribes. However, the argument-realization patterns alsovary between the two languages. For example, in Greek a possessor couldbe denoted by the dative and the genitive case (depending on the con-struction) and an addressee of speech by the dative case (with verbs ofspeaking) or by the accusative case (with verbs of asking). On the otherhand, in Demotic the preposition n- is used to mark an attributive rela-tion between nouns (cf. genitive), as well as the function of nominal directobject and indirect object (cf. accusative-dative).24 Unawareness of thesedifferences could result in case interchange.25 This does not imply thatevery case interchange in a Greek text written by a scribe whose nativetongue was Egyptian can only be caused by imperfect learning of the sec-ond language. As Trevor Evans argues, identifying bilingual interferencein Greek papyri requires a careful consideration of all possible explana-tions, such as the linguistic and educational background of the scribe, theprocess of text composition and the development of the language.26 Pur-suing Marti Leiwo’s approach, I use the following questions to examinethe sociolinguistic context of a case interchange.27

S. Swain (eds), Bilingualism in Ancient Society. Language Contact and Written Text, Oxford2002, p. 235: ‘What we do occasionally see is confusion over case endings. Demotic didnot have them, and so this may be a sign of Greek’s being used as a second language.’ 24 The marking of these functions is slightly different for pronominal forms, so that thedirect and indirect object can be distinguished, see further R. S. Simpson, Demotic Gram-mar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees, Oxford 1996, p. 100–110. 25 Marja Vierros, Bilingual Notaries in Hellenistic Egypt. A Study of Greek as a Second Lan-guage [= Collectanea Hellenistica V], Brussels 2012, pp. 139–175; eadem, ‘Phraseological vari-ation in the agoranomic contracts from Pathyris’, [in:] M. Leiwo, Hilla Halla-Aho &Marja Vierros, Variation and Change in Greek and Latin [= Papers and Monographs of theFinnish Institute at Athens XVII], Helsinki 2012, pp. 43–56. 26 T. V. Evans, ‘Complaints of the natives in a Greek dress: the Zenon archive and theproblem of Egyptian interference’, [in:] A. Mullen & P. James (eds), Multilingualism in theGraeco-Roman Worlds, Cambridge 2012, pp. 109–114. 27 Based on the ten questions to study nonstandard language proposed by M. Leiwo,‘Scribes and language variation’, [in:] Leena Pietilä-Castrén & Marja Vesterinen (eds),

(i) What would be the standard form? (ii) Is it possible to interpret the unexpected form in another way?(iii) Was the text composed, dictated or copied?(iv) Does the linguistic context point to a scribal error or copy mistake?(v) Could the text reflect a spoken practice? (vi) What could have been the native language of the scribe?28

(vii) What was the linguistic situation of the place where the text was composed?

(viii) Could the nonstandard form be explained by interference from another language?

The possibility of bilingual interference in early examples of dative bygenitive replacement does not mean that the process of dative replace-ment in the Greek language is caused by Egyptian interference. It is clearfrom the internal developments in the language and the geographicalspread of the changes that this is an unlikely course of events.29 Interfer-ence could easily have been limited to idiosyncratic language andephemeral phenomena. Still, when language contact is understood as ‘acause of any linguistic change that would have been less likely to occuroutside a particular contact situation’, the process of dative case syn-


Grapta Poikila I (= Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 8), Helsinki 2003, p. 2. The above questions 3, 5, 6, and 7 resemble the questions 9, 5, 7 and 10 in his study,while my questions 1 and 8 overlap partly with the questions 1, 3 and 6. 28 The linguistic background cannot unambiguously be interpreted from the Greek orEgyptian name of the scribe. W. Clarysse, ‘Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic armyand administration’, Aegyptus 65 (1985), pp. 57–66, has shown that in the second and firstcentury bc people working in the government service could have both a Greek and anEgyptian name. They would use the name that was most appropriate in each context. Theoffice of the agoranomos, for example, was predominantly taken by people with a Greekname, even when they were in fact Egyptians, the opposite could have been the case forthe office of the komogrammateus. For more references to literature on onomastics andethnicity in Ptolemaic papyri see also Vierros, Bilingual Notaries (cit. n. 25), pp. 39–49.There are other ways to assess the likelihood of a bilingual context, such as the writingmethod, language features or the context of provenance, see also Evans, ‘The Zenonarchive and Egyptian interference’ (cit. n. 26), pp. 112–115 29 As already observed by Humbert, La disparition (cit. n. 6), pp. 17–18.


cretism is likely to have been influenced by non-native speakers.30 Thesynchronic variation in the heterogeneous population of the Hellenisticperiod might well have accelerated these and other historical changes inthe Greek language.31

6. ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLES OF GENITIVE FOR DATIVE INTERCHANGE

The earliest example of the genitive instead of the dative case is pre-sented in example (1).

(1) SB XVI 12687, 4–5 (Arsinoites, late 3rd cent. bc):

α"το% γ'ρ συνγραψαµ[-νου] (l. συγγραψαµ[-νου]) | µου (l. µοι) συν- γραφ0ν (l. συγγραφ0ν) συνοι[κισ2ου]

As he himself had a marriage contract drawn up with me.

The papyrus contains an enteuxis from a woman named Tenes daughterof Marres concerning her marriage contract. Her name and patronymic(3εν56 7αρρ8ου6, see editio princeps, n. to l. 2) suggest that she is Egyptian,but she probably did not write the petition herself. The editor Guido Bas-tianini (editio princeps, p. 149) proposes that the marriage contract mighthave been written in Demotic originally, based on the sum of money (seep. 149 and n. to l. 6) and the expression 9ε:6; <µ[ατισµ=ν which correspondsto the Demotic formula n p3y-t h. bs ‘for your clothes’ (n. to l. 7).32 The emen-dations in l. 7 and 10 (additions of resp. ε:6 and >π@ τAν τ=[πων] above the

30 Sarah G. Thomason, Language Contact: An Introduction, Edinburgh 2001, pp. 61–62. 31 V. Bubeník, Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area [= Amsterdam Studies in

the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 57],Amsterdam – Philadelphia 1989, p. 287. 32 Cf. G. Bastianini, ‘Un abbozzo di enteuxis (P. Vindob. Barbara 9)’, Zeitschrift für Papy-rologie und Epigraphik 44 (1981), pp. 147–152. The editor maintained that the text was writ-ten with a rush pen, but the characteristic style of a brush is lacking. According to

line) and the abrupt ending in the middle of a word in l. 13 (τ"ι $ρχιφ<vac.>) suggest that the papyrus was probably a draft of a petition drawnup by a bilingual scribe for this Egyptian woman.33 The dative pronoun µοιis expected here instead of the genitive pronoun µου, cf. συγγραψ.µενοιγ.ρ µοι συγγραφ1ν in P. Enteux. 54, R˚ 3 (Bakchias, 11 May 218 bc).34 Partof the explanation could be that the scribe formed the genitive µου ana-logical to the previous words ending in –ου (unfortunately, the ending ofthe preceding participle συνγραψαµ[2νου] can only be supplemented).However, it is not impossible either that the scribe understood the geni-tive pronoun with the following noun µου συνγραφ1ν ‘my marriage con-tract’, referring to the woman’s contract which was signed by her husband.Especially in an oral context, the confusion between ‘he drew up a con-tract with me’ and ‘he signed my contract’ is easily made. If the scribeintended or confused the possessive reading here, this cannot be regardedas an example of dative replacement. On the other hand, precisely theambiguous interpretation of dative and genitive in a position between averb and a noun is likely to have been at the basis of the merger of cases.35

Another interesting case of dative by genitive replacement is found inan hypomnema in which the hypodioiketes Sarapion is asked to write toMennides the epimeletes to deliver a certain amount of oil to the Sara-pieion in Memphis (2).

(2) UPZ I 35, 16, 21–24 (Memphis, before 23 January 161 bc):

$ξι" σε ... γρ.ψαι 4ενν5δει | τ"ι 7πιµε9ητει (l. -τ;, corr. ex επιµε9ε-τει) προσαποδο<να5 µου (l. µοι) | κα> το?του το< @τουA τBν καθ1κοντα@9αιον (l. 79α5ου) | µετρητDν κα> κ5κιοA µετρητ1ν


Clarysse (personal communication, 28 Jan. 2014) the use of a bad pen would explain thevariation in thickness better. 33 Cf. W. Clarysse, ‘Egyptian scribes writing Greek’, Chronique d’Égypte 68 (1993), p. 200. 34 Bastianini, ‘Un abbozzo di enteuxis’ (cit. n. 32), p. 151, n. to l. 4–5. 35 Joanne Vera Stolk, ‘Dative by genitive replacement in the Greek language of thepapyri: a diachronic account of case semantics’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 15.1 (2015), pp. 91–121.


I ask you … to write to Mennides the epimeletes to deliver to me also for thisyear the due metretes of sesame oil and the metretes of castor oil.

The genitive instead of the dative pronoun as the recipient of the deliv-ery (προσαποδο'να) µου, l. 22) is used only in one of the four preservedcopies of this hypomnema (UPZ I 35), the other documents (34 and 36) pre-serve the same phrase with a dative pronoun. This suggests that a dative wasintended here as well. Apart from the official petition containing subscrip-tions in different hands (UPZ I 36), the others are considered to be drafts bythe hand of Apollonios.36 Ptolemaios and his brother Apollonios sons ofGlaukias of Macedonian descent are known from the archive of the katochoiof the Sarapieion in Memphis (cf. UPZ I). Living in the Egyptian environ-ment of the temple in Memphis, Ptolemaios and Apollonios spoke probablyboth Greek and Egyptian.37 Regardless of the Greek background of Apollo-nios, there are many orthographic and scribal mistakes in the copies anddrafts by his hand. One could argue that the mistakes might be caused byhis young age (as he was still called παιδ,ριον at the time when he copiedthe petition in example 2), but not only would this be a highly speculativeline of argumentation, it also does not explain why it resulted in preciselythis interchange of forms.38 The context would allow the case interchangeto be caused by a copy mistake, perhaps by analogy with the directly follow-ing genitive ending in -ου (the conjunction κα)was added later in the marginin this version). His confusion could be partly due to the use of the genitivein spoken Greek, but this cannot be established with certainty.

36 Cf. U. Wilcken, UPZ I, pp. 226–228. 37 Ptolemaios points out his Greek background in various instances, e.g. as the reasonfor him being attacked by Egyptians Ptolemaios gives παρ. τ0 12|2ην, µε ε5ναι in UPZ I7, 21–22 (Memphis, 19 November 163 bc), see similar phrases in UPZ I 8, 14 (Memphis,after 8 November 161 bc) and UPZ I 15, 16–17 (Memphis, after 8 May 156 bc), cf. also Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse, ‘Les identities multiples de Ptolémaios, fils de Glaukias’, AncientSociety 37 (2007), pp. 69–78 and Dorothy J. Thompson, Memphis Under the Ptolemies, 2nded., Princeton – Oxford 2012, pp. 213–214. Apollonios might have been able to read and/orwrite Egyptian, based on the Egyptian texts preserved in the archive, but this is not cer-tain, cf. U. Wilcken, UPZ I, pp. 115–116. 38 Cf. παιδαρ)ου 6πο22ων)ου in UPZ I 39, 19 (Memphis, 161 bc) and Wilcken, UPZ I,pp. 113–115.

A slightly later example is the letter from Pikos son of Psenminis to hissister’s husband Totoes son of Zmanres (3). The letter is part of the pri-vate family archive of Totoes. All family members have Egyptian namesand the archive contains more Demotic than Greek texts.39

(3) PSI IX 1023, 3–11 (Pathyrites, 9 July 106 bc):

!µο#ογ%ι (l. !µο#ογ%) 'π)χειν | παρ/ σο1 χα#κο1 νο|µ3σµατο5 τ6#α-ντα | δ8ο δρα(χµ/5) 9κτακοσ3α5 | :κ το1 δανε3ου τ%ν | τα#6ντων τεσ-σ6ρων | =ν τ)θειµα3 σου (l. σοι) :ν | το?5 @πο##ων3ου 'γορα( ) | ξενικο1

I acknowledge to have received from you two talents 800 drachmas ofbronze money from the loan of four talents (according to the loan contract)which I have drawn up with you at Apollonios’ foreign notary office.

Although the archive concerns the dealings of an Egyptian family, thisprivate receipt for the partial repayment of a loan is in Greek and relatedto a Greek loan contract.40 The antecedent of the relative =ν can beunderstood as a reference to the loan contract according to which thepayments are executed, cf. κατ/ δανε3ου συγγραφCν in the editio princeps,note to l. 9. Based on the parallel of P. Oxy. LV 3777, 11–13 (Oxyrhynchos,2–31 August 57 or 56 bc41) κατ/ τDν συγγραφDν τE5 | !µο#ογ3α5 =ν τ)θειµα3σοι δι/ το1 :ν Fξυρ8γχων πG#ε![ι] | 'ρ[χ]ε3ου, a dative pronoun wasexpected in this phrase. However, there are various possibilities for the


39 E. Boswinkel & P. W. Pestman, Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues (Pap. Lugd. Bat. 19),App. A, pp. 193–205. 40 Corrected by P. W. Pestman to l. :ν τH @πο##ων3ου 'γορα(νοµε3I) | ξενικH (BL V 125)against the editio princeps :ν | το?5 @πο##ων3ου 'γορα(νGµου) ξενικο1 (perhaps <'ρχε3οι5>).The Ptolemaic office of the agoranomeion xenikon could denote an institution especially for foreigners or it is how the Egyptians called the Greek notary offices in opposition totheir local offices, see Gabriella Messeri Savorelli, ‘Lista degli agoranomi di età tole-maica’, [in:] R. Pintaudi, Miscellanea Papyrologica [= Papyrologica Florentina 7], Firenze1980, pp. 248–249, n. 112. 41 Cf. C. Bennett & M. Depauw, ‘The reign of Berenike IV’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologieund Epigraphik 160 (2007), p. 213.


formulation of this expression, cf. also the petition from the bilingualfamily archive of Amenothes son of Horos in P. Tor. Amen. 8, 5–6(Mnemoneia, 20 November – 19 December 116 bc) !θ#µεθα πρ() *αυτο.)| /µο0ογ2αν δι6 το7 !ν τ8ι 9ι() π:0ει ξενικο7 =γοραν!ο!µ!2ου ‘we drew upbetween each other a contract through the foreign notary office inDiospolis’. Here, the petitioner refers to a contract which was made πρ()*αυτο.) ‘to’ or ‘between themselves’ (instead of the expected πρ() =00>-0ου)). The formulation as ?ν τ#θειµα2 σοι seems not fixed and somedegree of variation might be expected, especially between different typesof documents and different scribes. In the receipt for payment of the loanin (3), the formulation only partially renders the parallel phrases. The rel-ative pronoun ?ν does not directly refer to the loan contract drawn uppreviously, as expected, but rather to the loan itself (!κ το7 δανε2ου, l. 7).The sender Pikos acknowledges to have received back two talents and800 drachmas ‘from the loan of four talents’. The loan then receives a fur-ther modification, namely ?ν τ#θειµα2 σου the one ‘which I made to/fromyou’, where the verb τ2θεµαι ‘to draw up, to execute’ would generally beaccompanied by the party of the execution of the contract.42 Eventhough the scribe seems to have skipped some parts of the phrase, itwould be difficult to interpret the genitive here in the meaning of asource or possessor of the loan or the contract. The scribe might havebeen thinking about something else, but it is unclear what that couldhave been from the actual linguistic context. However, it seems unlikelythat he had a general tendency to use the genitive instead of a dative, asa dative pronoun is used in the phrase following immediately afterwards:Aτι !ν02|πει (l. !00ε2|πει) µοι !κ το7 δαν2!|ου (l. δανε2|ου) το7 προγεγρα(µµ#-νου) χα(0κο7) | τC0αντον Dν δρα(χµ6)) π!ε!ν!|τακισχι02α) διακο|σ2α) ‘there isstill left to me of the aforementioned loan: one talent of bronze and 5200drachmas’, l. 11–16.

A last example of the replacement of a dative by a genitive pronoun isfound in a business letter about a delivery of pottery (4).

42 Cf. F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, Berlin 1926, p. 599.

(4) BGU VI 1302, 5–7 (unknown provenance, 28 July 94 or 19 July 61 bc):

!µο#ογγο (l. !µο#ογ%) δ'σιν (l. δ+σειν) σοι τ!.!ε![/0] | το1 2ν30 κα6(7του0) κ δι. τ3 9το#εµα:αν (l. 9το#εµα:ον) | ε/ρηκ=ναι µου (l. µοι)>ποδο1να@ σ!οι

I agree to give to you those for the 21st year, because Ptolemaios told me togive (them) to you.

The letter was sent by Kollouthes to another Egyptian man Nek-teroïs.43 The text was written by Alexandros son of Herakleides (7γραψενBπCρ αDτο1 E#=ξανδρο0 | Gρακ#@δη0, l. Gρακ#ε@δου, l. 8–9), becauseallegedly the author could not write (δι. τ3 φIσκιν (l. φIσκειν) | αDτ3ν µJK!δ=ναι (l. ε/δ=ναι) <γρIµµατα>, l. 9–10). Although the writer has a Greekname, he leaves his patronymic in the nominative (Gρακ#@δη0 for Gρα -κ#ε@δου, l. 9), while he writes in the dative (Lο##οMθηι, l. 1) what is presum-ably the name of the sender.44 The Egyptian names of the sender andaddressee and the case inflections of the personal names could point to abilingual Egyptian-Greek background. The confusion of 2ν30 κα6 ε/κοστο17του0 and (7του0) κα (see editio princeps, n. to l. 6) might reflect the trans-position from spoken to written language, perhaps through dictation ofthe letter, or at least in the scribe’s mind during the process of text com-position. The linguistic context of this case interchange is particularlyinteresting, because we find in the same sentence two dative pronouns asthe recipient of a verb of giving (δ'σιν, l. δ+σειν, σοι, l. 5, and >ποδο1να@


43 Possibly a variant of Nechtpheroys, cf. Trismegistos People at www.trismegistos.org, Feb-ruary 2, 2014. 44 Another option is to take the datives Lο##οMθηι Oεκτερ+ιτι as the name and the pat -ronymic of the addressee, but this would leave us with no information about the sender ofthe letter. I prefer the interpretation of the more conventional opening: sender (nominative)– addressee (dative) – χα@ρειν, although introductory formulae omitting the name of thesender are occasionally found both in Greek and Egyptian letters, cf. F. X. J. Exler, A Studyin Greek Epistolography. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter, Washington 1923, pp. 58–59 andM. Depauw, The Demotic Letter. A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions against their Intra-and Intercultural Background [= Demotische Studien 14], Sommerhausen 2006, pp. 141–144.


σ!οι, l. 7). Hence, why would Alexandros put the addressee of speech in thegenitive (ε%ρηκ)ναι µου, l. 7) and the recipient of giving in the conventionaldative case? Both the recipient of giving and the addressee of speech canbe marked by the preposition n- in Demotic.45 Therefore, it is not likelythat the Egyptian background was directly responsible for the interchangeof genitive and dative in this sentence.

7. ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLES DATIVE FOR GENITIVE INTERCHANGE

Above I presented four examples of the replacement of the dative bythe genitive case from the Ptolemaic period. However, the opposite inter-change, the use of a dative instead of an expected genitive, is also attestedin this period. Three petitions from the Zenon archive contain the for-mulaic phrase δ)οµαι ο.ν σου ‘I beg you then’ with the dative instead ofthe usual genitive pronoun, cf. (5)–(7).

(5) P. Mich. I 29, 11 (Philadelpheia, 13–21 July 256 bc):

δ)οµαι ον (l. ο.ν) σοι κα/ ε0κετε2ω (l. 0κετε2ω) I beg and beseech you then.

(6) SB XXII 15462, 7 (Philadelpheia, 3 November 255 bc):

δ)οµαι ο.ν σοι, % (l. ε%) κα4 σοι δοκε5I beg you then, if it pleases you.

(7) PSI VI 656, 7 (Philadelpheia, mid-3rd cent. bc):

δ)οµαι ο.ν σου (corr. ex σοι), ε6 σοι δοκε5I beg you then, if it pleases you.

45 Cf. Depauw, The Demotic Letter (cit. n. 44), pp. 115–118, 144–147, 252–254 and 274–275;Simpson, Demotic Grammar (cit. n. 24), pp. 106–110.

P. Mich. I 29 (5) and SB XXII 15462 (6) are written in the same handand in both cases the pronoun is written in the dative case, while in PSIVI 656 (7) the dative pronoun (σοι) was corrected again into a genitive(σου) by the scribe.46 All three texts are painted with a rush pen whichseems a strong indication of the Egyptian background of the scribe.47

Therefore, Willy Clarysse suggested that the choice for the dative pro-noun might have been influenced by Egyptian syntax, since the Egyptianverbs for ‘to ask, to beg’ are not constructed with a source complementas in Greek (δ&οµα( σου, cf. English ‘to ask from/of ’). The Demotic equiv-alent of the Greek formulaic phrase δ&οµαι ο)ν σου, ε, σοι δοκε. would betw y tbh. n-ı’m s ı’w f hpr ı’w s h. s ‘I beg (it) if it happens that it pleases’, alsoonce attested with the indirect object of the request expressed, cf. tw ytbh. n-im k ‘I am begging you’.48 In this phrase the personal indirect objectis usually not expressed, or constructed by means of the prepositionalobject phrase n-im which is used for pronominal direct objects. Why thendid the Egyptian scribe choose a dative case as replacement for the Greekgenitive with δ&οµαι and not, for instance, the accusative case that isfound with other Greek verbs for asking (e.g. /ξι1 ο)ν σε ‘I ask you then’)?

Egyptian interference can be observed in direct transfer features, suchas occasionally found in translations of documents from Demotic toGreek.49 But this is not the only type of bilingual interference. Languagelearners also need to acquire the rules of the second language, and theircorrect and incorrect assumptions about the grammatical system couldresult in new formations that are not directly influenced by the grammat-ical structure of the first language.50 Especially in a situation of different


46 Clarysse, ‘Egyptian scribes’ (cit. n. 33), pp. 196–198. 47 Clarysse, ‘Egyptian scribes’ (cit. n. 33), pp. 197–200. Clarysse also mentions severalother Egyptian features in the Greek language of these scribes; see discussion in Evans,‘The Zenon archive and Egyptian interference’ (cit. n. 26), p. 111. 48 The examples, resp. from Demotische Texte auf Krüge, Vessel B 2, 17, and O. Thebes 14, 5,are taken from Depauw, ‘The Demotic letter’ (cit. n. 44), pp. 267–268. 49 E.g. G. Mussies, ‘Egyptianisms in a late Ptolemaic document’, [in:] E. Boswinkel, B. A. van Groningen, P. W. Pestman (eds), Antidoron Martino David oblatum, MiscellaneaPapyrologica [= Pap. Lugd. Bat. XVII], Leiden 1968, pp. 70–76. 50 H. H. Hock & B. D. Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relation-


patterning of the morphological marking of dependency relations, Egyp-tians might end up with wrong assumptions about the Greek case system.This could be the reason why these Egyptian scribes used the dative caseas the addressee of δ"οµαι ‘to beg, to request’, as they assumed that theaddressee of speech is always denoted by the dative in Greek.

A different background is found in (8). This enteuxis from two Greeks,Dioskourides and Nikanor, against the Egyptian woman Nephersouchiscontains a case correction, but relatively few other deviations.

(8) P. Enteux. 44, 2–4 (Arsinoites, 26 February 221 bc):

δανεισαµ"νη γ+ρ παρ’ .µ/ν (corr. ex .µ0ν) το2 κ4 (5του7) παρ+[8ιοσ]κουρ9δου µ:ν χα<κο2 (δραχµ+7) ι παρ+ =ικ>νορο7 | χα<κο2(δραχµ+7) ιδ ?στ’ ε@ναι (δραχµ+7) κδ οAκ Bποδ<9δ>ωσιν [.µ0ν]παρ+ τD Bπε<η<υθ"ναι αAτFν εG7 H[ε]ρ[κε]σ[ο2χα] | τI7 Jρακ<ε9δουµερ9δ[ο]7

For having borrowed from us, in the year 26, from Dioskourides 10 bronzedrachmas and from Nikanor 14 bronze drachmas, i.e. 24 drachmas in total,she does not pay back to us because she has moved to Kerkesoucha in the merisof Herakleides.

Since the orders from the strategos Diophanes to Deinias the epistatesof Kerkesoucha are added in a second hand below the petition, this doc-ument must have been the official version. The text is written in a cursiveand experienced hand and the language is close to standard Greek. Onlya few errors reveal the presence of the scribe, among them is .µ/ν (corr.ex .µ0ν) in l. 2.51 The minor errors are corrected on the spot leaving littleroom for doubt about the language competence of the scribe. The dis-crepancies might have been due to routine and imprecision rather than

ship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd ed., Berlin – New York2009, p. 357. 51 Cf. also the correction of the ο in Bνακα<εσ>µενον in l. 6 and the later addition of theυ to αAτKν in l. 7.

inexperience. In this situation, the scribe might have confused the geni-tive complement of the preposition παρ$ denoting source (παρ’ %µ&ν‘from us’) with the dative complement denoting location (παρ’ %µ(ν ‘withus, at our place’), perhaps because the party in question in fact representsthe intended recipient of the repayment. Both constructions (παρ$ withdative and with genitive) are used in Ptolemaic period, although the gen-itive clearly is the most frequently attested case form with this preposi-tion.52 If the scribe did not have any other intention with the dative casein this phrase, it might just have been a case of confusion or hypercorrec-tion, quickly adjusted afterwards.

8. CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper was to re-examine the evidence for dative bygenitive replacement in Ptolemaic papyri. It is argued that there is no par-ticular reason to date the beginning of this process to the first century bc,as the only text on which the conclusion was based can in fact be datedto the early Roman period. Furthermore, new examples from the Ptole-maic period can be found now and more may be found in the future.Based on editorial and scribal corrections of the dative and genitive caseforms in first and second person pronouns, I presented a new group ofdative-genitive interchanges, dating to the third, second and first cen-turies bc.

Remarkably, the genitives are attested in various constructions. Ifthese attestations reflect the actual linguistic situation, a modest degreeof variation between the dative and genitive case might already have beenpresent for several functions of the dative case, e.g. addressee and goal.However, qualitative analysis of the sociolinguistic context showed thatthe motivations for dative by genitive replacement in the Ptolemaic peri-od can be manifold. Because Egyptian verbs might have a different pat-tern of argument-realization than comparable verbs in the Greek lan-


52 See E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. II.2. Satz lehre,Analytischer Teil, Berlin – Leipzig 1934, p. 482.


guage, bilingual interference is a potential cause of case confusion. Someof the examples clearly originate from an Egyptian context, but the attes-tations of the genitive instead of the dative cannot straightforwardly beexplained by bilingual interference. The process of text composition, e.g.a draft version or copy of a document, might provide the circumstancesfor an unusual formulation or apparent case interchange (cf. examples 1 and 2). In order to explain the resulting occurrence of the genitive insuch a document, the direct linguistic context is important as well. Apartfrom analogical formation that might have played a role in examples 1 and2, the genitive could sometimes also be understood in its natural meaningof possessor or source (1). If that is the case, the editorial correction intoa dative pronoun might have been superfluous.

Apart from the replacement of the dative by the genitive, the oppositechange, i.e. the use of the dative instead of genitive case, is also found inthe same period. Based on the confusion of genitive and dative with theverb δ"οµαι ‘to beg, to request’, I suggested that bilingual interferencecannot only be found in direct transfer features from the first language,but also includes the interchange of cases based on incorrect assumptionsabout the structure of the second language.

Thus, since there can be several motivations for linguistic variation,individual examples should not be taken as evidence for language changebefore close examination of the social and linguistic context is complet-ed. Multiple factors might have influenced the outcome. In order to drawany conclusions about the process of dative replacement in the writtenlanguage of the papyri, further study is desirable, addressing both the par-ticular features of standard and nonstandard language in the Ptolemaicperiod as well as the later developments concerning case interchange inthe Roman and Byzantine periods.

Joanne Vera StolkPostboks 1020 BlindernN-0315 OsloNorwaye-mail: [email protected]

T AP YRO L O G Y P C OF THE ONGRESS OF ROCEEDINGS J …

Documents

Transcript of T AP YRO L O G Y P C OF THE ONGRESS OF ROCEEDINGS J …